Bharat Express

Delhi High Court Denies Relief To AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan In Money Laundering Case

AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan has not received relief from the Delhi High Court in his ongoing money laundering case.

HC Denies Relief To Amanatullah Khan In Money Laundering Case

Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan has not received relief from the Delhi High Court in his ongoing money laundering case. The court has declined to stay the lower court proceedings against him but has issued a notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), seeking a response. The next hearing is scheduled for October 28.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, during Tuesday’s proceedings, emphasized that the Metropolitan Magistrate should first determine if a case has been made against Khan. “Let the Metropolitan Magistrate decide whether a case is made out or not,” she said, addressing the request for a stay.

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Approves BJP Protest Near R.G. Kar Medical College

Magistrate Court’s decision

Khan’s plea sought to overturn a July 31 order that upheld a Magistrate Court’s decision from April 9. The April 9 order had issued summons to Khan in connection with an ED complaint alleging non-compliance with summons related to the money laundering case. The ED’s complaint, filed on April 4 under Section 174 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), accused Khan of evading 14 summons issued by the agency.

Special Judge Kaveri Baveja had previously ruled that there were no grounds to interfere with the Magistrate’s April 9 order, dismissing Khan’s plea as lacking merit.

In his high court petition, Khan argued that the summons order was issued improperly, describing it as careless and negligent. He claimed that his failure to respond to the ED’s summons was not intentional and had valid explanations.

During the hearing, Khan’s advocate, Rajat Bharadwaj, contended that all notices were complied with when Khan appeared before the ED.

On the other hand, ED’s special counsel, Zoheb Hussain, argued that the agency’s complaint was justified, noting that the summons were evaded multiple times and that the order had been issued after careful consideration.